A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?
It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such.
(edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published.
Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
Basically it boils down to:
* it was a fairly dangerous opinion with fabrications that weren’t vetted by the editorial team
* it was disrespectful and dangerous to the safety of their employees of color. The safety of people should not be a partisan issue
* it compromised the reporting abilities of other arms of the NYT
Also, this is so obvious, to so many parts of the political spectrum that pretending to not understand it is "telling on yourself" in modern parlance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o...
The editor in question also resigned.
Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.
Newspapers fairly regularly print opinion pieces that run contrary to the normal bias of the paper, but they usually refrain from printing ones which advocate violence directed towards the readers (and employees) of the paper.
> Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.
Killing is what the military does.
Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa".
The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters.
I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
Here in Seattle, it wasn't the rioters and looters who were attacked by police, it was mostly peaceful, non-violent protesters.
One might even imagine that the two are deliberately conflated.
> disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
They did publish a chunk of Mein Kampf back in 1941, only adding a single small paragraph of context.
It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.
So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest people and have them face trial. Advocating violent and potentially lethal crackdowns on people in situations like this is what brutal autocracies do.
While as a life-long military person I don't agree with his conclusions, you are mischaracterizing his article and I strongly suspect haven't read it.
> You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way
Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting his words contrary to what he's clearly said.
And given that he enlisted in 2005, and not in 1905, is it even reasonable to assume that he knew about this ancient meaning of the phrase? Does the military still use this phrase?
People actually killing protesters always, without fail, claim to be trying to stop "rioters and looters". This is not a phrase to be taken at face value, ever.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...
Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from.
Here’s what it actually said:
Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.
These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives.
Sounds reasonable to me. This also proved correct. And I agree with the article.
Militaries are also trained for peacekeeping missions. It’s not all about trigger happy gun toters.
If it’s an all out rebellion that’s different. I don’t see a ruby ridge or Waco incident coming, but maybe you do.
It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence.
No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior.
The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.